B Is Gravity an entropic property like Surface Tension

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter marees
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the concept of gravity as an emergent property, similar to surface tension, suggesting that it may arise from the need to minimize disorder at particle interfaces. It posits that gravity could be a byproduct of mass or momentum rather than a fundamental force, akin to a shadow or reflection. The idea is presented that gravity manifests through the curvature of spacetime, with objects in freefall following geodesics, which are the shortest paths in this curved space. This curvature causes massive objects to appear to attract each other, though they are merely following these geodesics. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the need to rethink gravity's definition in light of these emergent properties.
marees
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Why do two separately floating objects in a liquid "attract" each other ??

What if gravity is an emergent property like surface tension ?

What if they both are essentially trying to *minimize disorder at the interfaces — where non-aligned polarized particles are forced to mix with each other*

What if gravity is an emergent property that is trying to optimize the entropy emerging out of spin aligned quantum bits

 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think gravity may be so hard to define because it's not created/carried by a particle. It's a consequence of something else (mass, or perhaps also momentum). Like a shadow or reflexion of something else. It's a "byproduct", not an original force in it's own right.
 
marees said:
What if gravity is an emergent property like surface tension ?
Well, it is. What we obseve as gravity is simply the physcial manifestation of the curvature of spacetime.

Objects in freefall follow a geodesic - the shortest path through curved spacetime. Around massive objects, where curvature is high, this causes them to appear to curve toward each other, when in fact, they are simply following this shortest-path geodesic.
 
Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...